Turley v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 03 May 1974 |
| Citation | 508 S.W.2d 764 |
| Parties | Jo Ann TURLEY, Petitioner, v. Henry M. GRIFFIN, Judge, Daviess Circuit Court, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Stewart B. Elliott, Owensboro, for petitioner.
David L. Yewell, Owensboro, for respondents.
Jo Ann Turley seeks to prohibit a judge of the Daviess Circuit Court from proceeding in a child custody hearing on the ground that the Daviess Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction.
Jo Ann Turley and Daniel Lee Turley were married on July 26, 1969, in Columbia, Missouri. A child, Gayla Michelle Turley was born of the marriage. On September 22, 1971, the Turleys, then residents of Daviess County, were divorced by judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court. Custody of the daughter, Gayla Michelle was awarded to Jo Ann, subject to visitation rights.
After the divorce, Jo Ann moved to Indiana, and then on December 18, 1973, she moved from Indiana to Dallas, Texas. The first of March 1974, Jo Ann permitted Daniel Lee to bring the child to Kentucky for a two weeks' visit. During this period, Daniel Lee filed a motion in the Daviess Circuit Court to change and modify the original custody decree by granting him the custody of the child. Jo Ann, after unsuccessfully challenging the jurisdiction of the Daviess Circuit Court filed an original action in this court seeking prohibition.
We are presented with the problem of construing the Acts of the 1972 General Assembly with regard to jurisdiction of a custody proceeding.
KRS 403.260, in part, provides as follows:
'Custody--Jurisdiction, commencement of proceedings.--(1) A court of this state competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if:
(a) This state:
1. Is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding; or
2. Had been the child's home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reason, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or
(b) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because:
1. The child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with this state; and
2. There is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
(c) The child is physically present in this state; and
1. Has been abandoned; or
2. It is necessary in an emergency to protect him because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is neglected or dependent; or
(d) 1. No other state has jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine custody of the child;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siegel v. Siegel
...divorce court's original order might state that it retained jurisdiction. (Honigsberg v. Goad (Ky.1976), 550 S.W.2d 471; Turley v. Griffin (Ky.App.1974), 508 S.W.2d 764.) In those cases Kentucky courts did not entertain motions by fathers who lived in Kentucky for modification of custody de......
-
William L. v. Michele P.
...73 Cal.App.3d 298, 140 Cal.Rptr. 709 (1977); Schlumpf v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.3d 892, 145 Cal.Rptr. 190, Supra ; and Turley v. Griffin, 508 S.W.2d 764 (Ky.1974). RETROACTIVITY Although not raised by the parties, some reference to the issue of retroactivity may be required because of t......
-
Winkelman v. Moses
...jurisdiction to make a child custody determination as the home state. See, Bryant v. Bryant, 545 S.W.2d 938 (Ky.1977); Turley v. Griffin, 508 S.W.2d 764 (Ky.App.1974). The second major basis for jurisdiction involves significant connection and availability of evidence embodied in SDCL 26-5-......
-
Goff v. Goff
...jurisdiction would be proper if Kentucky were the child's home state within the last six months.38 Another Court of Appeals case, Turley v. Griffin, explained that continuing jurisdiction is inappropriate because the child resided outside of Kentucky for more than six months thereby losing ......